UK: Time To Rethink The SFO’s Corruption Policy

Last Updated: 8 June 2010
Article by David Corker

The importance of Thomas LJ's sentencing remarks delivered in the Innospec case on 18 March in relation to the SFO in particular and corporate criminality in general cannot be underestimated. It is a watershed judgment, raising issues of "constitutional principle" and the rule of law. It has significant implications for the SFO's policy on corporate foreign corruption and has sent a clear signal that the criminal courts cannot be bypassed and their sentencing powers ignored. The SFO needs to take immediate note to ensure that it does not become the captive of the very persons it was set up to investigate and prosecute.

It is ironic that this judgment was by a judge sitting in the Crown Court. Normally such first instance judgments carry little weight and are rarely reported. That an appellate judge who is also the deputy head of criminal justice decided to sit in the Crown Court strongly suggests that it was intended that his sentencing remarks should be widely broadcast and be seen as conveying the opinion of the senior judiciary. To underline this, the Lord Chief Justice took the first opportunity available to him to endorse them - in the Court of Appeal case of Dougall decided on 13 May.

Background to Innospec judgment

The facts of Innospec Ltd's egregious foreign corruption are well known as is the fact that this defendant pleaded guilty to the offence of conspiracy to corrupt. The entering of this plea was the culmination of negotiations the company had had with the US Department of Justice (DoJ) and the SFO as to its admissions concerning its corrupt acts. A narrative of these had been agreed and was provided to both the US and UK sentencing courts by the DoJ and SFO respectively. In this narrative in relation to what sentence should be imposed by a UK court, the SFO and the company jointly submitted that this should only consist of a confiscation order of $6.7m. However, the narrative also revealed that the company would pay $6m to the SFO by way of a civil recovery order. This was the deal which the SFO commended to the court.

This commendation conformed with the SFO's July 2009 guidance on how it would deal with cases of corporate foreign corruption. This guidance incentivized companies who self-reported their complicity in corruption with the emphasis being on the carrot not the stick. This leniency policy indicated to such companies that self-reporting would normally result in the SFO agreeing an out-of-court civil settlement. Or, if a prosecution was in the SFO's opinion necessary this could be confined to a limited part of the suspected criminality and there would be potential for a joint submission on sentence to the court.

US/UK practice

This new policy made a number of big assumptions novel to UK prosecutorial practice but common to US/DoJ practice.

  • First, that the incidence of corruption is best reduced by a leniency programme which leads to most self-reporting companies achieving an immunity against prosecution in return for paying a civil "fine".
  • Second, that if a prosecution of the company is partly or wholly necessary then the SFO and the defendant company are best placed to determine what the overall sanction should be.

The terms of the Innospec deal have already been outlined above. In the SFO-British Aerospace deal, the company pleaded guilty to a relatively trivial Companies Act offence for which a limited court-imposed fine is expected and it also agreed to make a substantial charitable donation. In other SFO-corporate deals such as Balfour Beatty and AMEC where there was no prosecution, the company agreed to an expensive form of SFO-imposed probation called monitoring.

In the US such deals between prosecutors and corporate defendants are widely used as a means of settling prosecutions. A policy of judicial acquiescence or self-restraint prevails. The recent New York case of SEC v Bank of America is the exception which proves the norm. The deal came before the US District Court in October 2009. However the sentencing judge, Judge Rakoff, refused to countenance it as it was "a contrivance designed to provide the SEC with a façade of enforcement and the management of the Bank with a quick resolution of an embarrassing enquiry....even under the most deferential view, this proposed Consent Judgment cannot remotely be called fair." In essence the judge found the deal was far too lenient in view of the scale of the bank's fraud on its shareholders.

The SEC returned to court in February with a fresh deal which the judge countenanced. Significantly, in terms of explaining the role of the court in relation to such deals, the judge said in his February judgment, that "the law requires the Court to give substantial deference to the SEC...the Court will fail in this duty if it did not give considerable weight to the SEC's position." Elsewhere in his judgment Judge Rakoff emphasised the duty of the court to acquiesce and not to interfere unless the proposed deal is plainly unfair or irrational.

The judgment of Thomas LJ should be considered against this context: would the UK judiciary similarly acquiesce and allow the SFO primacy in deciding how corporate criminality should be sanctioned?

Far-reaching implications for SFO policy

The judgment is a profound rejection of this SFO policy and of its ambitions to become a US-style prosecutor. In relation to the SFO's presumption that it could elect to treat criminal conduct as a civil wrong, Thomas LJ held that serious criminality should never be sanctioned merely via a civil settlement notwithstanding that such a settlement may disgorge millions of pounds from the company: "it will therefore rarely be appropriate for criminal conduct by a company to be dealt with by means of a civil recovery order.... It is of the greatest public interest that the serious criminality of any, including companies, who engage in the corruption of foreign governments, is made patent for all to see by the imposition of criminal and not civil sanctions. It would be inconsistent with the basic principles of justice for the criminality of corporations to be glossed over by a civil as opposed to a criminal sanction."

In relation to the SFO and the defendant making a joint submission on sentence, Thomas LJ also roundly rejected the assertion that it was lawful for a prosecutor to do this; "the imposition of sentence is a matter for the judiciary". Furthermore, not only must the prosecutor never agree a deal on sentencing with the defendant, neither must it make submissions to the court as to what the sentence should be imposed. Echoing Thomas LJ in Innospec, the Lord Chief Justice in Dougall said that any "agreement or bargain between the prosecution and the defence in which they agree what the sentence should be, or present what is in effect an agreed package for the court's acquiescence is contrary to principle."

It is implicit in Thomas LJ's judgment that he regarded the SFO's policy as an attempt to usurp the role of the court and that such an attempt needed to be repulsed in trenchant terms. Any ambition which the SFO director had of projecting the SFO into a DoJ equivalent doing deals across the spectrum of serious fraud offences with companies and determining where the public interest lies must surely now be confined to the realms of fantasy.

This judgment is also remarkable in that such was the judge's antipathy to the notion of the SFO doing deals that it asserted that the sentencing court's jurisdiction extends much further when in response to a guilty plea. Not only did the judge denounce the notion that a prosecutor could legitimately recommend a sentence to the court based on antecedent negotiations with the defendant it also held that the court should consider the terms of the deal itself: "a court must rigorously scrutinise in open court in the interests of transparency and good governance, the basis of that plea and to see whether it reflects public interest." Accordingly this must encompass a power to supervise the decision of the prosecutor over what charges to prefer and, more importantly, to enquire into why certain offences have not been charged.

This is a considerable enlargement of the court's supervisory function. Hitherto the two guiding principles have been:

  • that a court should be very reluctant to question a prosecutorial decision especially where it has been reached on policy or public interest grounds;
  • and that once the prosecution has framed its indictment, the trial judge has no power to "go behind" it and enquire why it is presented in the way that it is.

Thomas LJ's judgment must be taken as disapplying both of these principles at least in relation to any SFO-company deal. So, for example, when the BAe sentencing hearing is convened, the stage is set for the judge (almost certainly, HHJ Rivlin), to demand from the SFO's counsel an explanation for why the company is not indicted for any corruption offence but only for the Companies Act offence for which only a small fine is payable (the alleged offence having been committed prior to the unlimited fining power becoming available, surely no coincidence). Furthermore, will the judge question whether this seemingly extraordinarily lenient deal is just and in the public interest? Ultimately will he - like Judge Rakoff - reject the entire deal and tell the SFO to think again?

Recasting the SFO's corruption policy

Where does the Innospec judgment leave the SFO's policy on corruption? Plainly it needs to be substantially rewritten in order to offer a far less enticing prospect to a would-be corporate self reporter. The criminal courts cannot be bypassed and their sentencing discretion will not be fettered. Why then should companies ever feel inclined to self-report? The answer to this, which Thomas LJ emphasised, is that the penalties to be imposed upon a company which fails to self-report will be swingeing if not potentially ruinous. Corruption is "at the top end of serious corporate offending" and for a recalcitrant corporate defendant fines are likely to be measured in tens of millions. The sanction imposed on Innospec totalling $12.7m was regarded by Thomas LJ as "wholly inadequate". Thus the stick gains ascendancy over the carrot.

When the SFO's director comes to recast his policy, he would be wise to take account of the underlying significance of the Innospec and Dougall judgments. Both contain a warning that the SFO should be more vigilant about the risk of being seduced into an alliance with corporate defendants whereby public life is distorted to suit corporate interests. The allure of doing a deal (as opposed to having allegations tested in court with the risk of failure) must not distract the SFO from its primary role of investigating and prosecuting very serious criminality. This warning is perhaps most apparent from a passage in Dougall where the Lord Chief Justice said: "We need to take care, however, not to allow the issue of guidelines of prosecution of cases of fraud and corruption to suggest that they are rather more respectable forms of crime, or to be persuaded that somehow or other those who commit fraud or corruption should not be ordered to serve prison sentences....the administration of criminal justice does not treat those who commit offences of this kind as lesser criminals, there are no special rules which apply to the processes which apply when they come to be sentenced." In other words, the SFO must ensure that it does not become the captive of the very persons it was set up to investigate and prosecute.

A version of this article first appeared in the New Law Journal on 4 June 2010.

Corker Binning is a law firm specialising in fraud, regulatory litigation and general criminal work of all types. For further information go to

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.